D&D 5th Edition XIV: Hippy Druid Love, baby!

[russdm]

Sometimes it seems like the Evil groups in D&D are far more tolerant of even their worst "racial enemies" than the good ones:

Drow of the Underdark p152:

Nearly anyone who comes to a drow city to trade will be allowed to do so, unless he has been declared an enemy of the state. Drow are considered by all to be a wicked race, but though a dark elf would likely be killed on sight if he approached a surface elf community, those same surface elves could visit a drow city with relative impunity.

This, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all. The "Good" races have a "Kill on Sight" policy, and yet, most of the Evil races don't except for special cases. Isn't a key aspect of Good in the game that you don't kill people/things on sight or because of race? That's always be described a trait belonging to evil races.

[hamishspence]

This, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all. The "Good" races have a "Kill on Sight" policy, and yet, most of the Evil races don't except for special cases. Isn't a key aspect of Good in the game that you don't kill people/things on sight or because of race? That's always be described a trait belonging to evil races.

It has- specifically LE. Elves sometimes seem to bend the alignment system rather.

Going back to Tolkien, the Lothlorien elves outright stated (I believe) they probably would have shot the party fleeing from Moria without the (audible) presence of Legolas.

Legolas stated that it was his presence that caused the elves to "not hinder their crossing"

Then, what Haldir said was:

"we have heard rumours of your coming, for the messengers of Elrond passed by Lorien on their way home up the Dimrill Stair. We had not heard of - hobbits, or halflings, for many a long year, and did not know that any yet dwelt in Middle-earth. You do not look evil! And since you come with an Elf of our kindred, we are willing to befriend you, as Elrond asked; though it is not our custom to lead strangers through our land."

[Icewraith]

Sometimes it seems like the Evil groups in D&D are far more tolerant of even their worst "racial enemies" than the good ones:

Drow of the Underdark p152:

Nearly anyone who comes to a drow city to trade will be allowed to do so, unless he has been declared an enemy of the state. Drow are considered by all to be a wicked race, but though a dark elf would likely be killed on sight if he approached a surface elf community, those same surface elves could visit a drow city with relative impunity.

Yeah, there's some fluff I'd ignore when it comes to surface elves. Dwarf slavers or something who send a (disposable) envoy to ask permission to enter the city for trade would work, surface elves? Not so much.

Edit: Looks like my memory slightly biffed the elves' reaction bit from Tolkien.

[hamishspence]

They also made a point of saying "we cannot allow him to pass" about Gimli, before Aragorn talks them into it- with the implication that he would have been sent back across the border.

Dwarf slavers or something who send a (disposable) envoy to ask permission to enter the city for trade would work, surface elves? Not so much.

Probably depends on the city, with some being far more open than others. Sshamath, the City of Dark Weavings in Faerun (run by wizards rather than clerics) has a policy that sophisticated races in general, including surface elves can't be kept as slaves at all by citizens of the city- and on top of that, any such people with wizardly powers, are considered Free there, even if they are in fact escaped slaves from somewhere else.

[The Oni]

This, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all. The "Good" races have a "Kill on Sight" policy, and yet, most of the Evil races don't except for special cases. Isn't a key aspect of Good in the game that you don't kill people/things on sight or because of race? That's always be described a trait belonging to evil races.

"No, John, YOU are the Orcs!" And then John was a murderhobo.

[MukkTB]

I recently encountered a Cannibal tribe. There behavior followed a pretty simple script.

#1 Attack whatever.
#2 If immediate attack is impossible for some reason, threaten it, lie to it, and try to trick it into being killed for your pleasure.
#3 When the fight is over, if still alive, eat anything that is dead including fallen comrades.

They were totally irremediable butts. I tried negotiating with them several times and it was like talking to a brick wall. In the end, my party wiped out the entire tribe except for 7 of them. After we left the village those survivors spent their time butchering their buddies'/wives'/children's corpses and ran off. I never saw any little kids so I didn't have to make a moral decision about what to do with them. I don't know what the tribe did with its kids but it probably wasn't pleasant.

There are two points to this story. First these were totally evil guys who turned out to be descended from a cult worshiping a C/E god and deserved to be killed on sight, and they were humans. It took us a few interactions to learn about them, but making them Orcs wasn't required to get the desired effects. Any people can be evil.

Second, we did spend the time to figure out what was up with them in terms of alignment. It was moderately amusing in terms of gameplay and I don't see any problem with dealing with that kind of thing.

[Scow2]

Wow, these threads ran away from me.

I don't think Orcs deserve to be a manifestation of evil. They're just fugly humanoids who've drawn the short straw and often end up marching under the banner of evil overlords and warlords. Goblins and some of the other 'evil' races get the same deal.

If you want a manifestation of evil to fight there are a ton of options; Undead of every type and color, demons and devils of all sorts, magical beasts, Cthulhu type spawn from the elder gods, necromancers channeling pure evil, and the majestic (but evil) chromatic dragons.

I just don't see the need to turn a humanoid race into some magical manifestation of evil when we're swimming in the things already.

Because there needs to be a humanoid manifestation of evil - they are the incarnations of human evil. Not every humanoid needs to be human... and it's a serious disservice that it is treated as such. Halflings are closest to human in thought and action. Goblinoids and Orcs are manifestations of distinctly human Immoral Choices: Goblins being Dishonesty, Hobgoblins being Unjust Law, Bugbears being Bullies, and Orcs being Enemies of Civilization. Orcs are not "Tribal Humans". Tribal Humans are tribal humans. If people can't figure out how to play something that comes from nonhuman sensibilities, it's on them, not the system.

It's also important to have Always-Evil humanoid enemies from a mechanical standpoint - All "Humanoid" means is "It fights like a human" - nothing else. They use weapons, wear armor, might cast spells, can recognizably be of a player class, and play by the same rules as the players in combat (As opposed to, say, shooting spikes out of a tail, or breathing fire, or being immune to whole host of special effects, and other things that make more monstrous monsters special)

Besides, its the point of the fantasy genre to examine real-life concerns in a setting that allows for that without any of the real world ickiness and issues. If you don't really bother to do that, then you are just playing something escapist and you could just read a book or watch a movie or play a video game.

No, it absolutely is not. The point of single-creator art is to examine the real world. Gaming, including Roleplaying Gaming, is generally escapism first, social commentary a distant third... at least for Mainstream RPGs (Such as D&D). Leave the social commentary to published settings (And setting-dependent systems), not force it down the throats of those who just want to kick Evil's ass as a demon-slaying naked catgirl or something similarly fantastic.

Rich Burlew dismissed escapism as petty - but in the context, I'm hoping he's referring to being a single-content-creator as escapism. Putting purpose behind your work elevates it from a game or hobby to Art. D&D is best as a game/hobby.

Here's the paragraph in question:

By contrast, the 3rd Edition Monster Manual listed orcs as "often chaotic evil." Even setting aside the question of the orc babies, that seems to raise a lot of moral questions. How do I know that any particular orc band is evil? I can't just stumble into an orc lair and start killing them. I need to make sure they're evil. I need to observe their actions and verify that they're doing evil things. And even then, maybe I should be more concerned with rehabilitating them than with killing them. Basically, orcs are people, too. Orcs in this view aren't a corruption of nature, evil by virtue of their very existence. They're criminals, or an enemy nation. Their culture is evil, they're raised to be evil, but they don't have to be evil. So slaughtering their babies is evil, too.

That's not fantasy, frankly, at least not in its classic sense. That's the sciences of anthropology and psychology.


This only applies to Orcs sitting around doing nothing.

In a D&D-style fantasy, is it really hard to have those Orcs pose an active threat against someone or something? Behaving in evil and destructive ways, as opposed to just "being Evil."

Not everybody is looking for introspective soul-searching and philosophy in D&D. But it's hardly a stretch to say, "these guys need sworded because of a specific threat they pose," and "eh, the Monster Manual says 'evil' so let's just kill 'em." That's just an excuse for lazy adventure writing, IMO.

-O

D&D spends a lot of time outlining how orcs are evil, without having to spell out exactly what they are doing. If something is generically Evil (Without explanations why), it's up to the DM to fill them out. To turn the question around, is it really hard to imagine how something described as Savage and Brutal can be Evil?

The writer is clearly missing a huge thing about alignment - being evil is not punishable by death. A pickpocket stealing from a poor merchant might be evil. A cruel drill sergeant might be evil. A work-focused businessman might be evil. Until any of these people have committed crimes that warrant capital punishment, attacking them is illegal.

It may not be legal to kill someone who is Evil, but that only matters to people who are Lawful. It is not immoral to kill someone vile enough to detect as 'evil', unless they are protected by a Vetinari paradox. However, most people have protection through said paradox via strong social networking - the good of removing an Evil person from the world isn't worth the pain it inflicts on those connected to that person. Most "Evil" people are actually Neutral or Chaotic.

[Flickerdart]

Most "Evil" people are actually Neutral or Chaotic.

Nnnno. There is nothing at all to suggest that humans are Evil with any less frequency than they are Good.

[hamishspence]

It may not be legal to kill someone who is Evil, but that only matters to people who are Lawful. It is not immoral to kill someone vile enough to detect as 'evil', unless they are protected by a Vetinari paradox.

Depends who's writing.

Keith Baker, for example:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people.

[Turalisj]

Depends who's writing.

Keith Baker, for example:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

Eberron isn't exactly your typical 3.5 "alignment rules all" setting.

[tasw]

This, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all. The "Good" races have a "Kill on Sight" policy, and yet, most of the Evil races don't except for special cases. Isn't a key aspect of Good in the game that you don't kill people/things on sight or because of race? That's always be described a trait belonging to evil races.

Actually it makes perfect sense. The "good races" are under constant attack and constant risk of having their women/children/old people enslaved and or murdered by the bad races. And they actually care when this happens, they are GOOD. it bothers them when a wife/mother/child is lost. So they act pre-preemptively to protect those people from the most common perpetrators of violence. They are motivated by love, caring and protective instincts.

Whereas the evil races care mainly about personal wealth, power and satisfaction. So who cares who comes to trade if it makes them money? What those people may do aside from / in addition to, making them wealth is not relevant unless it affects the evil character personally. In which case he will enact vengeance.

Evil (selfish) cultures operate under different rules and assumptions then good ones. Security is the responsibility of the individual alone in an evil culture. In a good one, in a dangerous world we all should contribute to common and personal security but there are state and government policies to enforce it for everyone, because they care about the good of society.

Evil governments and cultures do not care about the good of their society, only about the good of the rulers. So they have a different sort of legal structure.

[Whiteagle]

I don't like the idea of them going right back to 1e's "monsters exist to be killed by the players" approach.

Agreed.

I feel heroically fighting off an orc horde or a goblin horde or the rampaging dragon. I don't feel heroic invading the home of some kobolds who aren't doing anything or a dungeon whose inhabitants live there, peacefully in that they aren't raiding the nearby villages or something, and whose home I am plundering like some criminal. It just feels, like I am some kind of orc and being just as bad as them.

Indeed, D&D Online at least gave context for this in it's major Kobold killing Quests, said Kobolds were usually Evil Cultist or plain militaristic jackasses who were going to become a threat to the city above, the major quest chain revolving around Captives they had kidnapped.

Then there is Home Sweet Sewer, a quest GIVEN by a Kobold so kind he doesn't want you laying a finger on the poor mistreated hunting dogs that have been sicked on his sewer home.

Of course DDO, being an MMO, is spastic to the point of insanity over this.
Purge the Heretics has you working for Silver Flame to kill Sovereign Host worshipers, HUMAN worshipers...

A Paladin who uses Detect Evil who then Smites Evil won't fall. It makes sense to give the paladin an ability to Detect Evil and not expect the paladin to kill the detected evil thing. That's just poor judgment then to claim that the paladin falls for using his abilities the way the designers intended.

...Have you read the Paladin's current "Detect" ability in Next?

It's like the difference between hearing, "Wolves have been stealing sheep," and, "Horses have been stealing sheep." Sure, the solution to both is probably to post guards or go hunting for the animals in question to reduce their number and/or drive them away. But the fact that horses are doing it might make you stop and wonder, "wait, what's going on here?" It's weird behavior.



Put another way:

"A red dragon has been stealing the cattle from this town and burning the duke's men who try to stop him. Peasants who brave the foot of his mountain lair get scraps of meat back."

vs.

"A gold dragon has been taking cattle from this town and burning the duke's men who try to stop him. Peasants who brave the foot of his mountain lair get scraps of meat back."


The first is obviously a bad dragon that needs slaughtering. Sure, giving scraps of meat back might raise an eyebrow, but are easily written off to enjoying the grovelling. The second is going to make people really wonder what's up; is this some sort of Robin Hood scenario with an evil and greedy baron starving his peasants?

No... no there isn't... both are big flying lizards who are eating some dudes Livestock and are apparently wasting enough to feed Peasants...

This is where your Horse and Wolf analogy breaks down as well; Wolves presumably don't just herd away with the sheep, they kill and EAT them...
Horses doing the same would ALSO be an issue that would probably be dealt with violently, perhaps more so because Horses DO NOT naturally eat meat, while both Horses and Wolves simply wandering off with the sheep would warrant investigation.

In both Dragon situations, the next step would be to talk with the Peasant's at the foot of the Mountain, and THAT is where the real context will show up.

Hell, I've had a Campaign Concept that STARTS with the PCs being goaded into killing the local Terrible Red Dragon, only to discover he's ALREADY dead and his hoard has been inherited by his much nicer daughter, and she's actually willing to listen to the plight of the local Villagers much like her own Kobold Servants.

Eberron took the approach that for the vast majority of creatures (orcs, goblins, etc included) there were no inborn alignment tendencies.

Which, along with the Magi-tech, is something I like about that setting.

"No, John, YOU are the Orcs!" And then John was a murderhobo.

We now need a Pre-made Module where the Pre-gen PCs aren't given any Racial Descriptions to work with outside of "Humanoid," then have the Twilight Zone Revel that they were an Orc Warband.

[hamishspence]

Eberron isn't exactly your typical 3.5 "alignment rules all" setting.

It still takes some of the basic principles behind alignment in the example it gives:

Greedy + Selfish + Willingly Watches Others Suffer = Evil.

[Craft (Cheese)]

This, of course, makes absolutely no sense at all. The "Good" races have a "Kill on Sight" policy, and yet, most of the Evil races don't except for special cases. Isn't a key aspect of Good in the game that you don't kill people/things on sight or because of race? That's always be described a trait belonging to evil races.

No no no, see, you gotta see this from WotC's perspective: This is so PCs (who are invariably Lawful Good) can have an adventure in a Drow city besides "massive battle in the streets vs. waves and waves of drow" without having to resort to something so distasteful and dishonest as adopting a disguise.

Nobody ever plays one of the evil races so the problem doesn't apply in reverse, so Good races can Kill On Sight all they want.

[Turalisj]

Nobody ever plays one of the evil races so the problem doesn't apply in reverse, so Good races can Kill On Sight all they want.

I think you forgot the blue text there.

[Morty]

Because there needs to be a humanoid manifestation of evil - they are the incarnations of human evil. Not every humanoid needs to be human... and it's a serious disservice that it is treated as such. Halflings are closest to human in thought and action. Goblinoids and Orcs are manifestations of distinctly human Immoral Choices: Goblins being Dishonesty, Hobgoblins being Unjust Law, Bugbears being Bullies, and Orcs being Enemies of Civilization. Orcs are not "Tribal Humans". Tribal Humans are tribal humans. If people can't figure out how to play something that comes from nonhuman sensibilities, it's on them, not the system.

It's also important to have Always-Evil humanoid enemies from a mechanical standpoint - All "Humanoid" means is "It fights like a human" - nothing else. They use weapons, wear armor, might cast spells, can recognizably be of a player class, and play by the same rules as the players in combat (As opposed to, say, shooting spikes out of a tail, or breathing fire, or being immune to whole host of special effects, and other things that make more monstrous monsters special)

I really think that as a society, we should grow out of trying to externalize our vices and failings. You know who personifies and manifests human evils? Humans.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I really think that as a society, we should grow out of trying to externalize our vices and failings. You know who personifies and manifests human evils? Humans.

Many authors have used supernatural-elements-as-metaphor to great effect, and I don't think this is something we should exclude from roleplaying games. The irony comes in when we use "Orcs are a metaphor for human savagery" to rationalize human savagery.

[Cavelcade]

Many authors have used supernatural-elements-as-metaphor to great effect, and I don't think this is something we should exclude from roleplaying games. The irony comes in when we use "Orcs are a metaphor for human savagery" to rationalize human savagery.

Oh my god, thank you! I've been trying to properly word this thought for a long time - can I sig this?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Sure, go ahead.

[Segev]

This is where your Horse and Wolf analogy breaks down as well; Wolves presumably don't just herd away with the sheep, they kill and EAT them...
Horses doing the same would ALSO be an issue that would probably be dealt with violently, perhaps more so because Horses DO NOT naturally eat meat, while both Horses and Wolves simply wandering off with the sheep would warrant investigation.

No, the analogy doesn't break down here. You are, in fact, making my point for me.

Horses AREN'T normally meat-eaters. But if both horses and wolves are stealing the sheep and the sheep aren't coming back, it's the same problem.

That you accord horses the thought, "well, maybe they're not eating the sheep, because that's not what horses do," makes my point. The dwarven bandits may (or may not) cause the players to wonder, "is there more to this than greedy bandits taking stuff for themselves?" The orcs, like the wolves, would just be assumed to be acting according to type and not warrant much deeper thought unless and until something incongruous came up.

So the analogy doesn't break down at all; it only reveals exactly what it's intended to: the difference in race of creature performing the act shifts it from "expected behavior; handle as standard adventure" to "investigate because something's up."

Of course, there are those who might investigate what's up with wolves stealing sheep and orc banditry, too. Many adventures doubtless would have "more going on" with it than the obvious if it wasn't just a device to get the PCs out and looking in a particular area for a hook into a more interesting plot. But whereas with "horses stealing sheep," you would have people already looking for what's causing this oddity, with "wolves stealing sheep," you'd need to hope that the players look hard enough at it for you to showcase some actual odd behavior that subverts the trope.

Both are valid techniques, and evoke different feels. One is obviously an investigation of something wrong from the get-go; the other is a discovery that there's something wrong.

[Morty]

Many authors have used supernatural-elements-as-metaphor to great effect, and I don't think this is something we should exclude from roleplaying games. The irony comes in when we use "Orcs are a metaphor for human savagery" to rationalize human savagery.

Pretty much.

Also, there's no doubt that using supernatural as a metaphor can be used to great effect; but making them personify human vices so human and human-ish PCs can feel better in comparison even as they kill them... is not a great effect.

[Whiteagle]

No, the analogy doesn't break down here. You are, in fact, making my point for me.

Horses AREN'T normally meat-eaters. But if both horses and wolves are stealing the sheep and the sheep aren't coming back, it's the same problem.

That you accord horses the thought, "well, maybe they're not eating the sheep, because that's not what horses do," makes my point. The dwarven bandits may (or may not) cause the players to wonder, "is there more to this than greedy bandits taking stuff for themselves?" The orcs, like the wolves, would just be assumed to be acting according to type and not warrant much deeper thought unless and until something incongruous came up.

So the analogy doesn't break down at all; it only reveals exactly what it's intended to: the difference in race of creature performing the act shifts it from "expected behavior; handle as standard adventure" to "investigate because something's up."

Of course, there are those who might investigate what's up with wolves stealing sheep and orc banditry, too. Many adventures doubtless would have "more going on" with it than the obvious if it wasn't just a device to get the PCs out and looking in a particular area for a hook into a more interesting plot. But whereas with "horses stealing sheep," you would have people already looking for what's causing this oddity, with "wolves stealing sheep," you'd need to hope that the players look hard enough at it for you to showcase some actual odd behavior that subverts the trope.

Both are valid techniques, and evoke different feels. One is obviously an investigation of something wrong from the get-go; the other is a discovery that there's something wrong.

No, because again, if they were eating them the Wolves would KILL the sheep outright.
That means sheep blood out in the fields, signs of struggle, and the eventual half eaten sheep carcasses turning up.
There has to be evidence that the wolves are doing something to the sheep, because farmers don’t have the time to go out and kill every potential predator.
So if sheep are just disappearing without a trace it would warrant investigation, since someone might just be rustling the flock.
If people saw the wolves herding away sheep without killing them, that would raise just as many red flags as horses suddenly developing a taste for lamb chops, because the carnivorous wolves simply killing and eating the sheep is something natural.

You see, it’s all about CONTEXT!
Sapient beings becoming bandits may simply be a result of them choosing to steal and pillage, making the only difference between the Orc and Dwarven Bandits their ethnicity.
Could their ethnicity have been an influence in this decision?
It’s very possible, such a thing does happen in reality due to social-economic structures, but then that would be a key element to the fictional world the game is trying to build.

There is a REASON why my Mookerson family of Characters are all True Neutral; They are various City Guards who’s most trusted method of problem solving is to simply kill the offender.
Yes they are slightly racist due to their “human’s are superior” training, but that doesn’t stop them from killing a human thief any less readily than an Orc Raider.

[Scow2]

I really think that as a society, we should grow out of trying to externalize our vices and failings. You know who personifies and manifests human evils? Humans.

And as a transhuman escapist, I think we should stop trying to impose our social agendas on people who just want to play games with their friends to escape the murkiness of the real world. Everyone and everything is simplified and idealized in games, tabletop RPG or otherwise.

Humans don't tend to manifest human failings and vices all the time, though: Humans tend to be either 'basically good, but make some bad choices' or 'basically bad but make some good choices'. Goblins are "Basically Bad and make bad choices". They still exhibit a few human virtues such as camaraderie, fellowship, and simian appearance... but a Goblin has the fantastic trait of almost always choosing the 'wrong' answer to a moral quandry, and learning the wrong lessons from life. They serve two purposes in an RPG and fantasy setting: Mooks to be mowed down, and a cautionary tale: "Don't be a Goblin."

The Giant doesn't want people treating others differently simply based on appearance. But characters in RPGs aren't people, and race is defined by behaviors just as much as appearance.

[hamishspence]

Goblins are "Basically Bad and make bad choices". They still exhibit a few human virtues such as camaraderie, fellowship, and simian appearance... but a Goblin has the fantastic trait of almost always choosing the 'wrong' answer to a moral quandry, and learning the wrong lessons from life. They serve two purposes in an RPG and fantasy setting: Mooks to be mowed down, and a cautionary tale: "Don't be a Goblin."

"Simian appearance" is a virtue?

[Scow2]

"Simian appearance" is a virtue?

To a lot of people. It's one of the key triggers of Empathy.

[Whiteagle]

They serve two purposes in an RPG and fantasy setting: Mooks to be mowed down, and a cautionary tale: "Don't be a Goblin."

The Giant doesn't want people treating others differently simply based on appearance. But characters in RPGs aren't people, and race is defined by behaviors just as much as appearance.

"Don't be a [Insert Nationality Here]."

Yep, nothing offensive about THAT! :eyeroll:

[Kurald Galain]

"Don't be a [Insert Nationality Here]."

Yep, nothing offensive about THAT! :eyeroll:

Hey, some of my best friends are from [Insert Nationality Here]!

[hamishspence]

TV Tropes has some interesting things to say about the origin of the word "mooks".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mooks

[Doug Lampert]

Eberron isn't exactly your typical 3.5 "alignment rules all" setting.

Yet in non-eberon D&D it's explicit that humans show no tendancy toward any alignment, including nuetral.

Which means that, "In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil" is NOT Eberon specific. That's the NORMAL RULE.

Similarly, that alignment is about basic attitudes and doesn't require any action at all is in the normal default rules. If it weren't how could a chromatic dragon be born evil? How could a demon that does nothing but fight in the blood-war be evil? The evil is in the attitude, not in being hatched or in killing devils (those creature's only actual actions).

The ONLY alignment rule that differs in any way whatsoever in Eberon is the frequencies of various alignments in some of the non-human races.

Human alignment is as normal, which means that roughly a third of humans are evil and ping as such. Nothing in the Keith Baker quote does not apply in RAW D&D third edition in other settings such as Greyhawk.

[Jacob.Tyr]

On the goblin/orc/murderhobo topic, honestly I think it's best to leave this up to the players. If the players encounter a group of orcs sitting around a campfire, and try to parley, then there's more to them than "always chaotic evil". If they charge up and slaughter them, then obviously the characters have some sort of background, either explicit or implicit, which makes this the proper choice to make in that situation.

A Paladin doesn't charge at a group of orcs sitting around a campfire because they're "always evil", but the group of orcs is evil because the paladin decides upon seeing them that his character has some background reason which dictates that this is how a lawful good character should and will act in this situation.

These are things you develop in your game world. They aren't the same between games or groups. If you've left this part of your game undeveloped, having left out the difference between "being and doing", you need to go with the flow. The characters, after all, grew up in this world, you're just telling their story.